Conceptual study of a flexible high-rise by Rok Perme

CONCEPTUAL STUDY OF A FLEXIBLE HIGH-RISE project

Master’s thesis

author

Rok Perme

mentor

Polona Filipič

co-mentor year faculty university

Tomaž Slak 2018 Faculty of architecture University of Ljubljana

Abstract As the world is changing faster than ever, the idea of flexibility is becoming more and more relevant. Buildings are created for decades or even centuries, economies and societies are on the other hand becoming unstable and variable. The consideration about flexibility in architecture is therefore necessary. That is especially true for high-rises which are becoming important part of sustainable development. High-rises that are able to adapt to constant changes are going to become an important part of urban fabric. To better understand the main factors that make a high-rise flexible, a study of flexibility in high-rises is made. 40 examples of high-rises are analysed with a help of 5 parameters that were chosen beforehand and then ranked based on their flexibility. Results of the study help determine main points of flexible high-rise. These guidelines are then applied to the location in Ljubljana, where two multi-use high-rises are designed. The purpose of defining location and program is to prove, how the high-rise adapts to space and function within the framework of predetermined universal guidelines. Key words: Change Sustainable development Flexibility High-rise

Table of contents Abstract

Table of contents

Introduction Unpredictable future

Study Study description

Data collecting

Data ordering & ranking

Comments

Simplification

Interpretation

Concept “Five points of a flexible high-rise”

Structure

Vertical circulation

MEP

Fire safety

Drawings Site plan 1:1000

Location ground floor 1:500

Underground parking garage 1:500

Section 1:500

HR1_Ground floor 1:250

HR1_Floor plans 1:250

HR1_Sections 1:250

HR1_Facades 1:250

HR1_Ground floor 1:250

HR1_Floor plan 1:250

HR1_Sections 1:250

HR1_Facades 1:250

Details 1:50

Visualization View from Samova ulica

View from Dunajska cesta

Facade HR1

Facade HR2

Conclusion Comparison with a study

References

INTRODUCTION Unpredictable future “In earlier societies the pace of change was slow, and buildings construcuted with solid walls of stone and brick, were regarded as permanent. The architect could therfore satisfactorily tailor his buildings to its function. Modern society, on the other hand, changes fast and the rate of change accelerates continually. The demands placed upon a building may shift equally fast, and the building that is fitted to its initial function too closely may soon be outmoded. ... With modern methods of construction – taking the load of a building on a frame rather than on solid walls – it is possible to design buildings that can be endlessly changed, but even this techique may not be flexible enough. One of the images constantly recurring in the work of the youngest generation of architects is the buildings so fluid that it is never completed but is permanently surmounted by cranes, which continually rebuild it to ever fresh requirements.” (John Winter: Modern buildings, page 19) Flexibility in architecture has been around for quite a while now. Modern architecture and new construction technologies and materials made it possible to substitute massive wall structures with lightweight frame systems. Le Corbusier’s “Five points on architecture” describe basic principles of modern architecture, which are visible in one of his first project- Villa Savoye. One of the five points- free plan, directly associates with the idea of flexibility, due to floor plan’s possibility to adjust to different needs and changes. Mies van der Rohe spent his entire career perfecting his famous principle “Less is more”, a desire for a clear structural solutions resulting in an open flexible floor plans. Flexibility of his floor plans is especially seen in Crown Hall project where he designed an open space without any support in a way that it can adjust to user’s needs. In 1970s, in a competition for Centre Pompidou, Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano proposed a radical solution with a long-span steel 4

structure and visible external MEP systems. Their project won and Pompidou Centre is still operating with multiple functions. 2016 Pritzker prize laureate Alejandro Aravena applied a concept of flexibility on a social housing. His residential complexes are intentionally left half finished with an empty space offering possibilities for future additions. All four projects have one thing in common- universality. They are not too specifically designed although a primary function is assigned. Spaces are meant to be adjusted according to future changes. Idea of flexibility is therefore nothing new but it is becoming almost essential because of rapid changes in today’s societies. Flexible and universal architecture has also been applied on many typologies with one exception: high-rises. They are still specifically designed to its primal function (residential, commercial, office…). Because of the structural restraints it is naturally more difficult to plan a flexible high-rise, but it is also more difficult to demolished and replace it once it becomes outdated. Many abandoned highrises all over the world prove that inflexible and static designs can harm the economy, environment and consequently also society.

“It used to be said that the only certain things in life are death and taxes. Now in the early 21st century, it is a given that among life’s certainties is rapid and unpredictable change. The world’s mega cities are in a constant and dramatic state of flux. Buildings are demolished; new ones are erected. Economies rise and fall. Social and political order are whimsical, leaders are capricious. People flood in from the countryside, from other countries, looking for work, shelter, security. What of buildings? No one who designs, or constructs, or pays for the design and construction of a building wants to think of it as evanescent or mutable. And yet that is precisely what we must have in mind when we design and build. In such an infinitely unstable environment, architects must throw away their Ruskin – “When we build, let us think that we build forever” – in favour of new goals: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Resilience is the capacity of a building or a system to absorb change in medias res without resisting it; adaptability relates to the components and their influence on resilience over time; and transformability is that which enables survival.” (Brillembourg, A., Klumpner, H.: Torre David: informal vertical communities, page 334)

STUDY Study description The study of flexibility of high-rises and

NFA

S/GFA

different structural systems incorporates all

Ratio between the leased area and

Ration between structural area and gross

types of structural systems (interior structures,

building systems area. Building systems area

floor area (GFA). As a structural area, only

exterior structures), from different time

represents all of the unchangeable and

primary structure is considered. Structure

periods (1951-2018) and from all around

static parts of the floor plan: elevator area,

of installation cores, elevator shafts, fire

the world (USA, Hong Kong, Sloveniaâ&#x20AC;Ś).

stair area, shaft area, core program area

exit staircases and the like is not taken into

Some of the high-rise projects included in a

and structural area.

account.

study remained in a design phase, but were chosen because of their unique structural systems. The goal of a study is to find the characteristics of different structural systems and their ability to satisfy future needs of universality and flexibility. Typical floor plan is drawn for each high-rise, with building systems area (dark grey), leased area (light

Buildings systems area

grey) and structural area (black) shown on it. Some high-rise projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s floor plans change significantly with height. In these instances, floor plan with biggest GFA above 5th floor is chosen, which enables the comparison of the most efficient floor plans of each structural systems. In order to compare floor plans as equally as possible, atriums are counted as leased area (atriums are usually the result of a large floor plan which is a result of a high building. Counting atriums as leased area, we can partially eliminate the height difference between high-rises, and only compare the maximum potential of structural systems. To make the comparison possible and objective, five parameters are defined. These five parameters are used as indicators of universality and flexibility. Year of completion, architect, height/stories, high-rise outline (O) and maximum structure span (S) are also given for each high-rise. All of the floor plans are in scale and are therefore comparable.

Lease area

Structural area

Flexibility parameter. Ration between the

Accessibility parameter. Ratio between the

Illumination parameter. Ratio between open

area of the largest possible rectangle (most

longest possible distance between a random

periphery of a building and closed periphery

effective geometrical shape for the average

point on a floor plan and its nearest elevator

of a building. Illumination is calculated just

activity) that can be drawn inside floor plan

and the longest possible distance between

for the part of the floor plan with leased

and the GFA. Rectangle must be free of

two points on a floor plan.

area. Exterior building systems cores are not

building system and structural elements that

taken into account.

could define the space too much (walls, densely positioned columns â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sears tower 25).

Biggest possible rectangle drawn inside a floor plan

Longest distance between two points on a floor plan

Enclosed periphery of a building

Longest distance between a random point on a floor plan and its nearest elevator

Open periphery of a building

STUDY Data collecting Lake Shore Drive 1951 Mies van der Rohe 82 m / 26 st. O: 32 x 19.2 m S: 6.4 m L: 619 m² BBS: 24 m² NFA: 96,1% S/GFA: 1.2% F: 41% A: .43 I: 100%

Skyscrapers B & C 1976 Edvard Ravnikar 69 m / 17 st. O: 36.8 x 32 m S: 6 m L: 538 m² BBS: 216 m² NFA: 59,9% S/GFA: 4.4% F: 23.1% A: .45 I: 100%

01 Business Man Assurance Tower 1961 SOM 85 m / 19 st. O: 55 x 33 m S: 11 m L: 1358 m² BBS: 199 m² NFA: 14.7% S/GFA: 1.0% F: 32% A: .46 I: 100%

Kersnikova 1971 Milan Mihelič 46 m / 14 st. O: 21 x 19 m S: 6 m L: 360 m² BBS: 30 m² NFA: 8.3% S/GFA: 6.8% F: 17.4% A: .39 I: 100%

02 Seagram Building 1958 Mies van der Rohe 157 m / 38 st. O: 42.5 x 34 m S: 8.5 m L: 1038 m² BS: 251 m² NFA: 24.2% S/GFA: 0.7% F: 44.6% A: .68 I: 96.5%

MahaNakhon 2016 Ole Scheeren 314 m / 77 st. O: 40 x 40 m S: 8.5 m L: 1117 m² BBS: 399 m² NFA: 35.7% S/GFA: 4.8% F: 22.5% A: .55 I: 100%

Savske Stolpnice 1962 Milan Mihelič 50 m / 15 st. O: 24.5 x 17 m S: 5 m L: 321 m² BS: 42 m² NFA: 13.0% S/GFA: 7.9% F: 16.6% A: .36 I: 100%

Inland Steel Building 1957 SOM 101 m / 19 st. O: 52.5 x 19.5 m (35 m z jedrom) S: 17 m L: 897 m² BS: 219 m² NFA: 24.4% S/GFA: 1.0% F: 80.4% A: .74 I: 94.9%

The Index 2011 Foster + Partners 328 m / 80 st. O: 120 x 39 m S: 25 m L: 1934 m² BS: 775 m² NFA: 40.1% S/GFA: 11.2% F: 24.6% A: .24 I: 76.0%

10 Metalka 1963 Edo Mihevc, Branko Kraševec cca 55 m / 15 st. O: 36 x 15 m S: 6.8 m L: 442 m² BS: 121 m² NFA: 27.4% S/GFA: 3.2% F: 48.3% A: .53 I: 85.1%

Media HQ project REX architects 220 m / 40 st. O: 100 x 22 m S: 22 m L: 1641 m² BS: 349 m² NFA: 19.0% S/GFA: 3.7% F: 82.5% A: .41 I: 79.1%

11 Situla 2010 Bevk Perović Arhitekti 72 m / 20 st. O: 36.5 x 24 m S: 7.8 m L: 861 m² BS: 133 m² NFA: 15.4% S/GFA: 5.7% F: 19.6% A: .31 I: 100%

Astra 1970 Savin Sever 44 m / 11 st. O: 23 x 18 m S: 10 m L: 350 m² BS: 37 m² NFA: 10.6% S/GFA: 5.2% F: 60.0% A: .57 I: 87.3%

14 Taipei 101 2004 C. Y. Lee & Partners 509 m / 101 st. O: 48 x 48 m S: 8 m L: 1713 m² (75 m² cirkulacija) BS: 534 m² NFA: 31.2% S/GFA: 4.6% F: 21.9% A: .49 I: 100%

Šišenska Soseska 1967 Ilija Arnautović cca 45 m / 14 st. O: 44 x 23 m S: 6 m L: 515 m² BS: 80 m² NFA: 15.5% S/GFA: 9.0% F: 7.7% A: .17 I: 55%

Crown Zellerbach HQ 1959 SOM 94 m / 19 st. O: 59 x 20 m (36 m z jedrom) S: 18.2 m L: 1172 m² BS: 332 m² NFA: 28.3% S/GFA: 0.9% F: 77.9% A: .53 I: 86.9%

NEO Bankside 2012 Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners 72 m / 24 st. O: 36.5 x 24 m S: 7.8 m L: 537 m² BBS: 89 m² NFA: 83,4% S/GFA: 3.4% F: 48.2% A: .50 I: 90.1%

17 Allianz Tower 2015 Arata Isozaki & Associates, Andrea Maffei Architects 209 m / 50 st. O: 62 x 24 m S: 7.5 m L: 1019 m² BS: 394 m² NFA: 38.7% S/GFA: 5.0% F: 60.0% A: .46 I: 67.7%

120m

18 9

STUDY Sears Tower 1973 SOM 442 m / 108 st. O: 70 x 70 m S: 22.5 m L: 3950 m² BS: 684 m² NFA: 17.3% S/GFA: 6.1% F: 9.4% A: .44 I: 100%

Istanbul Saphire 2011 Tabanlioglu Architects ≈ 230 m / 65 st. O: 52 x 34 m S: 8.5 m L: 1260 m² BS: 132 m² NFA: 10.5% S/GFA: 8.7% F: 19.4% A: .39 I: 87.1%

25 Kingtown International Center 2014 SOM 231 m / 56 st. O: 45 x 45 m S: 11.8 m L: 1707 m² (215 m² atrij) BS: 82 m² NFA: 4.8% (19.9 z atrijem) S/GFA: 2.2% F: 25.2% A: .54 I: 100%

Torre Cepsa 2008 Foster & Partners 248 m / 45 st. O: 53 x 42 m S: 18 m L: 1210 m² BS: 630 m² NFA: 52.1% S/GFA: 6.4% F: 60.9% A: .34 I: 67.6%

20 Al Sharq Tower project SOM 367 m / 102 st. O: 40 x 40 m S: 12.5 m L: 1219 m² BS: 200 m² NFA: 16.4% S/GFA: 5.4% F: 9.2% A: .37 I: 100%

AON Center 1973 Edward Durell Stone 346 m / 83 st. O: 53 x 53 m S: 12.3 m L: 2359 m² BS: 321 m² NFA: 13.6% S/GFA: 3.4% F: 33.6% A: .54 I: 100%

21 Dewitt Chesnut Apartments 1966 Fazlur Khan (SOM) 120 m / 43 st. O: 38 x 24 m S: 6.5 m L: 819 m² BS: 68 m² NFA: 8.3% S/GFA: 3.1% F: 37.5% A: .36 I: 100%

John Hancock Center 1969 Fazlur Khan (SOM) 344 m / 100 st. O: 70 x 44 m (office) S: 12.9 m L: 2466 m² (138 m²) BS: 392 m² NFA: 15.9% S/GFA: 1.9% F: 33.4% A: .34 I: 100%

29 30 St. Mary Axe 2003 Foster + Partners 180 m / 41 st. O: 56 x 56 m S: 14.5 m L: 1774 m² (396 m² atrium) BS: 512 m² NFA: 28.8% (66.0% w/ atrium) S/GFA: 1.3% F: 22.3% (9.7% w/ atrium) A: .57 I: 100%

34 HSBC HQ 1985 Norman Foster 180 m / 47 st. O: 69 x 55 m S: 32 m L: 2687 m² (604 m² atrium) BS: 577 m² NFA: 21.5% (56.7% w/ atrium) S/GFA: 1.7% F: 75.9% (28.0% w/ atrium) A: .36 I: 60.8%

O-14 Building 2011 Reiser + Umemoto 107 m / 22 st. O: 45 x 37 m S: 10 m L: 902 m² BS: 210 m² NFA: 23.3% S/GFA: 8.0% F: 29.0% A: .52 I: 100%

Poly Real Estate HQ 2007 SOM 160 m / 34 st. O: 82 x 18 m (30 m z jedrom) S: 11.5 m L: 931 m² BS: 533 m² NFA: 57.3% S/GFA: 6.0% F: 63.6% A: .60 I: 72.4%

Century Tower 1991 Norman Foster 137 m / 21 st. O: 43 x 32 m S: 17.5 m L: 942 m² (121 m² atrium) BS: 380 m² NFA: 40.3% (61.0% w/ atrium)) S/GFA: 1.3% F: 71.3% (31.2% w/ atrium) A: .45 I: 38.2%

Hearst Tower 2006 Foster & Partners 182 m / 46 st. O: 53 x 40 m S: 12 m L: 1696 m² BS: 261 m² NFA: 15.4% S/GFA: 1.8% F: 30.5% A: .48 I: 92.7%

Brunswick Building 1965 SOM 145 m / 35 st. O: 46 x 30 m S: 10 m L: 1098 m² BS: 248 m² NFA: 22.6% S/GFA: 4.3% F: 33.2% A: .41 I: 100%

100 Mount Street Building 2018 SOM 149 m / 38 st. O: 56 x 30 m S: 15 m L: 1275 m² BS: 359 m² NFA: 28.2% S/GFA: 4.2% F: 78.8% A: .69 I: 79.3%

Leadenhall Building 2014 Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners 225 m / 48 st. O: 48 x 57 m S: 14.5 m L: 1854 m² BS: 523 m² NFA: 28.2% S/GFA: 1.5% F: 69.4% (5. st.) A: .72 I: 76.8%

35 Lloyd’s Building 1986 Richard Rogers & Partners 88 m / 14 st. O: 68 x 46 m (leased area) / 105 x 70 m (w/ outside cores) S: 16.5 m L: 2964 m² (385 m² atrium) BS: 653 m² NFA: 40.2% (22.0% w/ atrium) S/GFA: 0.6% F: 81.9% (31.1% w/ atrium) A: .35 I: 70.0% 36

120m

36 11

STUDY Bank of China Tower 1990 I. M. Pei & Partners 367 m / 72 st. O: 53 x 53 m S: 24 m L: 1668 m² BS: 466 m² NFA: 27.9% S/GFA: 4.3% F: 18.8% A: .35 I: 100%

37 Commerzbank Tower 1997 Norman Foster 259 m / 56 st. O: 58 x 58 m S: 16.5 m L: 1613 m² (125 m² atrium) BS: 478 m² NFA: 29.6% (40.5% w/ atrium) S/GFA: 3.6% F: 41.6% (20.0% w/ atrium) A: .30 I: 57.8% 38 Ultra Highrise Project 1 project Christian Kerez 120 m / 30 st. O: 58 x 40 m S: 11.2 m / 5.6 m L: 1900 m² BS: 147 m² NFA: 7.7% S/GFA: 0.5% F: 57.9% A: .34 I: 87.9%

39 Ultra Highrise Project 2 project Christian Kerez 120 m / 30 st. O: 58 x 40 m S: / m L: 2015 m² BS: 278 m² NFA: 13.8% S/GFA: 0.2% F: 54.5% A: .42 I: 80.0%

120m

STUDY Data ordering & ranking High-rises are compared, evaluated and

Equation to normalize data to a scale of

Ranking of parameters on their importance

ranked based on five predetermined

1-20:

and their factors:

parameters. To enable the comparison of

x’ = (b-a) x ((x-A)/(B-A))+a

F: .35

calculated data for each high-rise, data

x’= new normalized value

NFA: .25

first had to be normalized. Each parameter

x= old value

A: .20

has different values and is therefore

b= new max= 20

O: .15

incomparable to others. To make the new

a= new min= 1

S/GFA: .05

normalized values for each parameter as

B= old max

After new values of parameters on a scale

different as possible, the scale of 1-20 is

A= old min

of 1-20 are multiplied by their corresponding

chosen. That allows for wide representation

Parameters are then valued for their

importance factor, new values are added

of values, which makes comparison easier.

importance. Because value of parameter

together to form a final score of a high-rise,

If scale of 1-5 would be chosen, too many

S/GFA is normally very small (structure on

which are then ranked from the one with the

values would be represented by the same

average takes only around 5% of GFA), it is

highest to the one with the lowest final score.

high-rise.

given lower importance then e.g. parameter

Graphs with values for each parameter are

of flexibility F.

also made to allow more detailed analysis for each high-rise.

NFA

[.25]

S/GFA

[.05]

[.35]

[.20]

[.15]

Lloyd’s Building

0.780

0.006

0.819

0.350

0.700

16.1

Ultra Highrise Project 1

0.923

0.005

0.579

0.340

0.879

15.9

Media HQ

0.810

0.037

0.825

0.410

0.791

15.8

HSBC HQ

0.785

0.017

0.759

0.360

0.608

14.6

Lake Shore Drive

0.961

0.012

0.410

0.430

1.000

14.4

Crown Zellerbach HQ

0.717

0.009

0.779

0.530

0.869

14.3

Dewitt Chesnut Apartments

0.917

0.031

0.375

0.360

1.000

14.0

Ultra Highrise Project 2

0.862

0.002

0.545

0.420

0.800

14.0

Inland Steel Building

0.756

0.010

0.804

0.740

0.949

13.9

Astra

0.894

0.052

0.600

0.570

0.873

13.7

John Hancock Center (office)

0.841

0.019

0.334

0.340

1.000

13.2

NEO Bankside

0.834

0.034

0.482

0.500

0.901

12.8

100 Mount Street Building

0.718

0.042

0.788

0.690

0.793

12.7

Business Man Assurance Tower

0.853

0.010

0.320

0.460

1.000

12.5

Kingtown International Center

0.952

0.022

0.252

0.540

1.000

12.1

AON Center

0.864

0.034

0.336

0.540

1.000

12.0

Brunswick Building

0.774

0.043

0.332

0.410

1.000

11.9

Situla

0.846

0.057

0.194

0.310

1.000

11.8

Leadenhall Building (5th story)

0.718

0.015

0.694

0.720

0.768

11.8

Hearst Tower

0.846

0.018

0.305

0.480

0.927

11.7

Kersnikova

0.917

0.068

0.174

0.390

1.000

11.7

Metalka

0.726

0.032

0.483

0.530

0.851

11.5

Savske Stolpnice

0.870

0.079

0.166

0.360

1.000

11.3

Seagram Building

0.758

0.007

0.446

0.680

0.965

11.2

Allianz Tower

0.613

0.050

0.600

0.460

0.677

11.0

Century Tower

0.597

0.013

0.713

0.450

0.382

10.9

Commerzbank Tower

0.704

0.036

0.416

0.300

0.578

10.9

Istanbul Saphire

0.895

0.087

0.187

0.390

0.871

10.8

Torre Cepsa

0.479

0.064

0.609

0.340

0.676

10.6

Bank of China Tower

0.721

0.043

0.188

0.350

1.000

10.5

Al Sharq Tower

0.836

0.054

0.092

0.370

1.000

10.5

O-14 Building

0.767

0.080

0.290

0.520

1.000

10.4

Sears Tower

0.827

0.061

0.094

0.440

1.000

9.9

Šišenska Soseska

0.845

0.090

0.077

0.170

0.600

9.6

30. St. Mary Axe

0.712

0.013

0.223

0.570

1.000

9.6

Taipei 101

0.688

0.046

0.219

0.490

1.000

9.6

Skyscrapers B & C

0.599

0.044

0.231

0.450

1.000

9.2

The Index

0.599

0.112

0.246

0.240

0.760

9.0

Poly Real Estate HQ

0.427

0.060

0.636

0.600

0.724

8.9

MahaNakhon

0.643

0.048

0.225

0.550

1.000

8.8

STUDY Lloydâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Building 16.1

Dewitt Chesnut Apartments 14.0

100 Mount Street Building 12.7

NFA S/U

S/GFA K/(U+S)

A D

Ultra Highrise Project 1 15.9

NFA S/U

S/GFA K/(U+S)

A D

I O

Ultra Highrise Project 2 14.0

A D

S/GFA K/(U+S)

Business Man Assurance Tower 12.5

17 14

NFA S/U

14 10 7

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Media HQ 15.8

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

Inland Steel Building 13.9

20 15

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Kingtown International Center 12.1

20 17

8 5 1

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

HSBC HQ 14.6

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

Astra 13.7

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

AON Center 12.0

18 14

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Lake Shore Drive 14.4

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

O I

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

S/U NFA

D A

O I

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Situla 11.8

19 15

NEO Bankside 12.8

D A

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Brunswick Building 11.9

Crown Zellerbach HQ 14.3

D A

John Hancock Center 13.2

S/U NFA

11 8

15 11

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

120m

12 17

STUDY Leadenhall Building 11.8

Allianz Tower 11.0

Al Sharq Tower 10.5

20 17

13 11

8 2 S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

1 OI

Hearst Tower 11.7

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

Century Tower 10.9

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O-14 Building 10.4

S/U NFA

13 11

K/(U+S) S/GFA

1 S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Kersnikova 11.7

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

Commerzbank Tower 10.9

S/U NFA

14 11

15 11

9 7

D A

O I

Metalka 11.5

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

Istanbul Saphire 10.8

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Šišenska soseska 9.6

15 12

K/(U+S) S/GFA

Sears Tower 9.9

S/U NFA

D A

11 8

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

Savske Stolpnice 11.3

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

Torre Cepsa 10.6

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Seagram Building 11.2

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

12 9 4

Taipei 101 9.6

O I

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

S/U NFA

Bank of China Tower 10.5

S/U NFA

D A

30 St. Mary Axe 9.6

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

120m

15 19

STUDY Skyscrapers B & C 9.2

20 13

7 5

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

The Index 9.0

18 13 7

5 1

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Poly Real Estate HQ 8.9

15 12

10 6 1 S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

MahaNakhon 8.8

12 9

7 4

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

120m

STUDY Comments Despite constant and convincing results it is

than Allianz Tower’s (81%/61.3%), the same

Earthquake zone, regulations, climate, area

necessary to point out that each high-rise

goes for flexibility parameter F (82.5%/60.0%).

development, height of a building and other

project is unique and specific to its location,

Accessibility A (.41/.46), structural area S/

factors strongly influence final design of a

budget, year of completion and other

GFA (3.7%/5.0%) and illumination parameter I

building. The study is therefore insufficient

variables influencing final design. Numerical

(79.1%/67.7%) are similar. Size and placement

for a thorough analysis of structural systems

parameters and mathematical equations

of building system cores on the smaller sides

and their corresponding high-rises. Result are

are not enough for a thorough analysis of

of a floor plan is the main reason for different

nevertheless clear and informative and can

architectural projects.

final scores. Uninterrupted leased area is

help determine main guidelines in designing

Some of the project with similar structural

much bigger in the case of Media HQ which

universal and flexible high-rise of the future.

systems, heights and years of completion

results in higher NFA and F parameters.

have at the end quite different final scores. A small difference in a floor plan concept can

Similar example is found between high-

significantly affect parameter values.

rises Inland Steel Building 04 and Poly Real Estate HQ 32, both with exterior single core

Media HQ 17 and Allianz Tower 18 have

layout. Floor plans of both projects are similar

almost identical structural systems and height

despite different structural systems (Inland

(209 m/ 220 m) but different final scores.

Steel Building: rigid frame system/Poly Real

Main reason for it is mainly in a much more

Estate HQ: exoskeleton). The difference is

effective way Media HQ was designed on a

again in the size and placement of exterior

level of floor plan. Let us look at some of the

core and in the NFA ratio.

parameters. Media HQ’s NFA is much bigger Media HQ 15.8

Media HQ projekt REX architects 220 m / 40 st. O: 100 x 22 m S: 22 m L: 1641 m² BS: 349 m² NFA: 81.0% S/GFA: 3.7% F: 82.5% A: .41 I: 79.1%

20 15

D A

14 12 8

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

Crown Zellerbach HQ 14.3

Crown Zellerbach HQ 1959 SOM 94 m / 19 st. O: 59 x 20 m (36 m z jedrom) S: 18.2 m L: 1172 m² BS: 332 m² NFA: 71.7% S/GFA: 0.9% F: 77.9% A: .53 I: 86.9%

19 16

11 8

Poly Real Estate HQ 2007 SOM 160 m / 34 st. O: 82 x 18 m (30 m z jedrom) S: 11.5 m L: 931 m² BS: 533 m² NFA: 42.7% S/GFA: 6.0% F: 63.6% A: .60 I: 72.4%

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Poly Real Estate HQ 8.9

15 12

10 6 1

32 22

K/(U+S) S/GFA

Allianz Tower 11.0

Allianz Tower 2015 Arata Isozaki & Associates, Andrea Maffei Architects 209 m / 50 st. O: 62 x 24 m S: 7.5 m L: 1019 m² (87 m² cirkulacija) BS: 394 m² NFA: 61.3% S/GFA: 5.0% F: 60.0% A: .46 I: 67.7% 18

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

Simplification The study shows that structural system and

Structural system

Building systems configuration

core layout are key elements at planning a universal and flexible high-rise. Simplified matrix of exterior/interior structural systems in a combination with exterior/interior building systems cores gives us multiple possible structural system/building system core variations. Which variations are best suited for a flexible high-rise of the future is shown with a study.

Interior structure

Interior - single core

Exterior structure

Interior - double core

Rigid frame structure

Interior - multi core

Structural system plays a key role in determining whether a high-rise has a potential for a flexible floor plan or not. Highest flexibility values F is achieved by undefined, free plan. Interior bearing structures on the other hand prevent flexible floor plan layouts due to its static nature. Structural system does not play a big role in accessibility of the floor plan, where positioning of cores has the biggest importance. Illumination of the periphery is a bit smaller with exterior structures because of bigger structural elements blocking the sunlight, although structural elements can be significantly reduced by newer structural systems (diagrid, diagonals) and materials. Moment of inertia is much bigger on highrises with exterior structure than on the ones with interior structure, which results in a more efficient and therefore smaller structural elements. Structural area as a proportion of GFA is therefore smaller on exterior structures. Rigid frame structures proved to be quite good in all aspects of the study, but are limited when it comes to the height of the building. They are also not as efficient as exterior structures and are therefore not frequently used anymore in modern architecture.

Exterior - single core

Positioning of building systems cores can be divided into two categories: interior and exterior. Interior cores are in combination with interior structure usually connected with interior structures (load bearing interior cores) and are designed as single or double interior cores. Interior building systems cores have in combination with exterior structure more freedom and can be in some cases freely distributed across the floor plan, which makes it more flexible.

Exterior - double core

Exterior building systems cores can also be divided into single core, double core or multi core schemes. Higher number of cores makes the floor plan more accessible with the same periphery illumination, due to smaller sizes of cores compared to a single core scheme. In a case of a bearing exterior building systems cores (usually double core scheme), they can be much larger and more massive.

Exterior - multi core 23

STUDY Interpretation Ranking of high-rises by each of the five

NFA

S/GFA

parameters will show characteristics of

20 Lake Shore Drive 01

20 Ultra Highrise Project 2 40

structural systems and high-rises that are

20 Kingtown International Center 26

19 Lloyd’s Building 26

influencing certain parameter and make

19 Ultra Highrise Project 1 39

19 Inland Steel Building 04

it easier to express main factors impacting

18 Dewitt Chesnut Apartments 22

19 Crown Zellerbach 05

each parameter.

18 Astra 06

19 Business Man Assurance Tower 33

Five highest and five lowest ranked high-rises

The Index 16

O-14 29

are shown for each parameter with a goal to

Trg Republike 07

Savske Stolpnice 09

find common characteristics of both groups

Century Tower 34

Istanbul Saphire 19

of high-rises. Simplified schemes of structural

Torre Cepsa 20

Šišenska Soseska 10

systems and building systems configurations

Poly Real Estate HQ 33

The Index 16

of best ranked high-rises are added to each parameter.

Highest ranked high-rises have building

High-rises with exterior structure have on

systems positioned in the interior of the

average scored much higher scores than

building, but what is more important is the

the ones with interior structures. Exceptions

independency of the building systems from

are rigid frame structures, which have along

primary structure, which results in a more

with two Kerez’s projects, scored the highest.

flexible floor plan.

Diagrid structures also have low S/GFA value.

In examples with the lowest scores, building

High-rises with bearing wall systems have

systems are usually inserted inside concrete

expectedly high S/GFA value and therefore

bearing cores. In office high-rises, building

lower score.

systems area is usually larger, because restrooms are added to elevators, staircases and MEP systems.

20 Lloyd’s Building 36

20 Šišenska Soseska 10

20 Lake Shore Drive 01

20 Media HQ 17

18 The Index 16

20 Dewitt Chesnut Apartments 22

19 Crown Zellerbach 05

16 Commerzbank Tower 38

20 John Hancock Center 24

19 Inland Steel Building 04

15 Situla 12

20 Business Man Assurance Tower 02

19 100 Mount Street Building 33

14 John Hancock Center 24

20 Kingtown International Center 26

Savske Stolpnice 09

Poly Real Estate HQ 33

10 Allianz Tower 18

Istanbul Saphire 19

Seagram Building 03

HSBC HQ 35

Al Sharq Tower 27

100 Mount Street Building 33

Šišenska Soseska 10

Sears Tower 25

Leadenhall Building 31

Commerzbank Tower 38

Šišenska Soseska 10

Inland Steel Building 04

Century Tower 34

Highest flexibility values have high-rises with

High-rise Šišenska Soseska has extremely low

Cases with centrally positioned building

building systems positioned on the exterior.

accessibility ratio and therefore high score,

systems and without interruptions on a

Floor plan is therefore free of building systems

mostly because of its central and elongated

façade have 100% illuminated periphery and

and uninterrupted. When building systems

hallways which connect to each apartment

therefore highest score. High-rises with the

are placed on the inside of the high-rise,

unit. Other high-rises with high scores either

lowest score have building systems placed

floor plan becomes more defined and less

have multiple elevator cores (Commerzbank

in two cores positioned on the exterior of the

flexible. Densely placed columns in Sears

Tower, The Index) or one centrally positioned

building (Allianz Tower, HSBC HQ, Century

Tower are considered as structural elements,

(Situla, John Hancock Center). Examples with

Tower).

which limit and define space. Because of

low scores usually have one exterior core,

that, flexibility value is in that case very low.

which significantly reduces accessibility to a random point on a floor plan.

CONCEPT “Five points of a flexible high-rise”

Exterior structure

Exterior building systems (elevators, staircases, HVAC)

Exterior structure + exterior building systems

Double exterior structure

Free plan

Double exterior structure increases stability in the lateral direction quite significantly, because of a bigger moment of inertia. Dimensions of structural elements can therefore be much smaller. Double exterior structure can also stand by itself without the help of interior structure, which results in a support-free interior.

Possibility of a floor structure to be carried on the outer exterior structure enables free plan without bearing columns or walls. Building systems placed on the exterior furthermore clears the interior of any interruptions. Any program can be inserted inside free plan with peripheral in-between space reacting to the function inside.

Peripheral in-between space

Exterior building systems

Elevators, staircases and MEP shafts are all placed in-between double exterior structure. Interior space is therefore not only without structural elements but without any obstructions.

Independence between main elements

Double exterior structure, Interior floor structure, elevators, staircases, MEP shafts have to be independent between themselves – it should be possible to add or remove one of the elements without impacting other. Only this could result in a completely flexible high-rise. 26

Along with placement of building systems, peripheral in-between space offers many possible programs to be placed inside the double exterior structure. This program could complement the function inside (peripheral hallway, balcony, two-heighted space, mezzanine, interior space (restrooms, storage, office…).

“What is wrong with their user interfaces? Well, the problem with them is really in the bottom 40 there. It is this stuff right here. They all have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or not to be there. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in plastic and are the same for every application. Well every application needs a slightly different user interface, slightly optimized set of buttons, just for it. And what happens when you think of a great idea six months from now? You can’t run around and add buttons to these things, they are already shipped. So what do you do? It doesn’t work, because the buttons and controls can’t change. They can’t change for each application and they can’t change down the road if you think of another great idea you want to add to this product. Well, how do you solve this? It turns out we have solved it. We solved it in computers 20 years ago. We solved it with a bitmap screen that can display anything we want, put any user interface up.” Steve Jobs, iPhone Keynote (presentation of the 1st iPhone), 2007

CONCEPT Structure Primary structure is composed of four structural systems: 1. outer exterior structure, 2. inner exterior structure, 3. structure of the peripheral in-between space and 4. interior floor structure.

compared to conventional floor structure solutions, because space frame height could accommodate all of the necessary ducts and pipes and would in a sense work as a suspended ceiling.

1. Exterior structure, which is divided into two layers, transfers loads into the ground: the outer layer transfers most of the laterals loads (wind, earthquake) because of a high moment of inertia.

4. Structure of the peripheral in-between space enables the two layers of exterior structure to work together and acts as a wall with a thickness of 3.2 m. Modularity of this kind of connective structure enables adding and removing modules and creating different kinds of atmospheres.

2. Inner layer on the other hand transfers most of the gravity loads from the interior floors and peripheral in-between space. 3. Interior floor structure is carried on the inner layer of exterior structure and does not need any supports. High-rise project for my Master thesis would have to span a length of 22.5 m. Interior floor plan is not a complete square (22.5 m x 37.5 m), but it would still be logical to use a two way structural system (space frame). Space frame would be carried on all four sides of the inner layer of exterior structure and would be around 70 cm high. Floor structure height would not increase

The two layers of the exterior structure in a combinations with a connective inbetween structure work together and are independent of the interior structure, which again has a lot of freedom when it comes to removing floor structures to create two heighted spaces or even hollowing floor structures to create vertical visual connection between stories.

1. Outer exterior structure lateral loads

Diagonals

2. Inner exterior structure gravity loads

Diagrid

Superframe

3. Structure of the peripheral in-between space modular connection between two layers of exterior structure

4. Interior floor structure

transfer of interior free plan gravity loads

Analysis of a structure in SAP2000

Model with real dimensions

Axial loads

Deformations

Steel design - efficiency

Load: 15 kN/m2

Interior floor structure - space frame

70 cm

Approximate dimensions of structural elements calculated in the analysis

Outer exterior structure

Diagonals: RHS 300x200

Inner exterior structure

Columns: HEM450

Structure of the peripheral in-between space

Beams: IPE600

Beams: UPN400/IPE400

CONCEPT Vertical circulation Building systems are placed according to

Next page shows three possible configura-

the function inside. Static parts of the periph-

tions of static vertical circulation elements

ery that have to be fire resistant are two fire

(fire exit stairs, firefighter’s elevator). Acces-

exit stairs and firefighter’s elevator. Vertical

sibility from the elevator is shown with a blue

circulation elements (elevators, open stair-

line (only normal elevators are considered

cases) are then added to the periphery as

in the analysis of accessibility). Floor plan is

needed. Stories with a higher user capacity

divided into a square grid. For each square

need higher number of elevators. Adding

a coverage analysis is made. In a case of

extra staircases to the stories, that can be

private stories, two elevators must cover the

open compares to enclosed fire exit ones, al-

whole floor plan. That means low accessi-

lows additional vertical connection between

bility, which is acceptable in the case of a

stories. High-rise periphery configuration

private story because of a low user capacity.

therefore changes with height and chang-

Stories with programs that demands higher

ing function. Along with building systems,

accessibility due to higher user capacity

many other programs can also be inserted

also have higher number of elevators. Floor

in the peripheral in-between space: balcony

coverage is therefore distributed to elevators

(apartments), locker rooms (gym), storage

that are evenly placed around the perime-

(grocery store), hallway (cinema), interior

ter. Accessibility of the interior free from the

space (office)…

perimeter is shown with a dotted line (only squares connecting to the perimeter are considered). Example: Interior floor plan is divided into 15 squares. In a case of a private configuration a pair of elevators covers all of the 15 squares, on the other hand, a pair of elevators on a public floor only covers 5 squares.

Firefighter’s elevator

Elevator Private # users Fire exit stairs

# staircases # elevators

apartments hotel student housing

Peblic - private # users # staircases # elevators

Open staircase

sport court swimming pool

Public # users # staircases # elevators

gym

grocery store shops cinema

Configuration 1 Private

Public - private

Public

Configuration 2

Configuration 3

GSEducationalVersion

CONCEPT MEP Flexibility of a high-rise is also dependent on

Distribution through the longer side

a flexible MEP systems design. Distribution has to be planned in a way that it can adjust to different functions and needs. It is important that the placement of vertical and horizontal distribution of MEP systems is independent from other elements of a high-rise (structure, staircases, elevetors…). MEP systems that would be too statically positioned would prevent changes through time. MEP shafts are therefore placed in the corners of a high-rise, from where they are easily accessible. Ducts and pipes are firstly distributed through the perimeter horizontally from where they access the interior floor plan where necessary. Horizontal distribution through the perimeter would be harder to accomplished through static vertical circulation elements (fire exit stairs, 2 shafts

4 shafts

firefighter’s elevator), therefore it is necessary to avoid them.

Distribution through the shorter side

Two distribution options are shown on the left. In the first case, fire exit stairs and firefighter’s elevator are positioned on the shorter side of the floor plan. Horizontal distribution is consequently installed through the longer side and vice versa. For each option there is also a possibility to double the number of vertical shafts. That could result in smaller duct sizes and allow MEP systems to satisfy high capacity needs. Distribution through the longer side is also shown in an axonometry.

2 shafts

GSEducationalVersion

4 shafts

Fire safety 1. Fire resistance of structural elements in a high-rise that is higher than 60 m has to be 120 minutes.

Calculation of fire exit width Above 200 users: - Ground floor: 0.6 m per 100 users - Above ground floor: 0.6 m per 60 users - Underground: 0.6 m per 50 users - Minimum width of fore exit stairs and hallways is 1.2 m

2. Building elements on the boundaries of fire sectors have to be made out of the materials with a fire resistance of 120 minutes. 3. In high-rises that are higher than 60 m, all of the secured staircases have to be built as fire exit staircases.

High-rise has two fire exit stairs with a width of 1.2 m. Fire exits counted together are therefore 2.4 m wide. 2.4 m / 0.6 m = 4 x 60 users = 240 users Maximum number of users per story is 240.

4. There has to be an enclosed area in from of the doors to a fire exit staircase. Doors that lead to this enclosed area have to be at least 3 m away from the doors to the fire exit staircase.

(Glavnik, Jug, 2010; Dietmann, Schmidt, Spittank, 2009)

5. From every point on the floor plan there has to be at least one exit to the fire exit staircase, its enclosed area in front of it or to the outside in the radius of 35 m. 6. High-rise has to have one firefighter’s elevator with an access to every floor. Shaft of the elevator has to have a fire resistance of 120 minutes. Dimensions of the elevator have to be at least 2.10 m x 1.10 m. 7. In front of every doors to the firefighter’s elevator there has to be an enclosed smoke protected area with at least 6 m2. Maximum distance from the doors to the enclosed are to the elevator’s doors is 3 m. 8. Maximum distance from the firefighter’s elevator to the most distant point on the floor plan is 50 m.

Structural element 120 minutes fire resistant

Inside/outside barrier F

3.20

7.50

≥ 3.00 m

1. 6. Firefighter’s elevator

2. 3. Fire exit stairs

7. Enclosed area in front of the firefighter’s elevator

≥ 3.00 m

5. ≤ 35.00 m

7.50

28.90

8. ≤ 50.00 m

≥ 1.20 m 4. Enclosed area in front of the fire exit stairs

max # of users: 240

120 minutes fire resistant

3. 7.50

3. Fire exit stairs 2.

3.20

A 3.20

7.50

3.20

43.90 1

DRAWINGS Site plan

±0.00

Pavement

Grass with trees

Mariborska ulica

Street +76.00

+76.00

Ptujska ulica

±0.00

Access to underground parking garage

+76.00

Plečnik stadion

Dunajska cesta

+76.00

±0.00

GSEducationalVersion

+76.00

Samova ulica

Topniška u

lica

GSEducationalVersion

Site plan 1:1000

Location ground floor

±0.00

Ptujska ulica

Pavement

3 Grass with trees Firefighting vihacle area Firefighting vihacle access

3.20 7.50

Street

3.20

28.90 7.50

+76.00

7.50

3.20

Entrance to undergorund parking garage

7.50

+76.00

7.50

7.50 43.90 ±0.00

7.50

±0.00 7.50

±0.00

3.20 +76.00

Dunajska cesta

Entrance to undergorund parking garage

+76.00

±0.00

GSEducationalVersion

Firefighting vihacle access Firefighting vihacle area 3.20 7.50

28.90 7.50

3.20

7.50

3.20

7.50 7.50

±0.00

7.50 43.90 7.50 7.50 GSEducationalVersion

3.20

Vhod v podzemno garažo

GSEducationalVersion

1 Public transport 2 Public bike station 3 Trash bins 4 Bike path

5 Vihacle access to the underground parking garage

a išk pn a

GSEducationalVersion

±0.00 1:500 35

DRAWINGS Underground parking garage

61.66 28.90

32.76

3 -4.50

3 4

45.59

43.90

6 7 8 7.50

-4.50

3 K 134.49

129.71 37.50

85.81 1 2 3 4

2 43.90

-4.50

1 High-rise elevator 2 High-rise fire exit stairs

4 21.48

28.90

50.38

3 Underground garage fire exit stairs

4 Technical area

-4.50 1:500

Section longitudinal to Dunajska cesta

+ 76.00 + 72.20 + 68.40 + 64.60 + 60.80 + 57.00 + 53.20 + 49.40 + 45.60 + 41.80 + 38.00 + 34.20 + 30.40 + 26.60 + 22.80 + 19.00 + 15.20 + 11.40 + 7.60 + 3.80 Â± 0.00

- 4.50 - 8.00 - 11.50

3.20

7.50

3.20

7.50

+ 76.00

7.50

7.10

4.74

Section K-K 1:500

GSEducationalVersion

HR1

HIGH-RISE 1

HYBRID

DRAWINGS Ground floor

HR1:±0.00 Hybrid Pavement

Grass with trees

Street +76.00

Firefighting vihacle area +76.00

Firefighting vihacle access

+76.00

28.90 3.20

7.50

3.20

1 3.20

±0.00

7.50

±0.00

3 7.50

+76.00

+76.00 4

4 1

7.50

43.90

GSEducationalVersion

5 ±0.00 7.50

1 Vertical circulation - private Elevator 1: 13 users (2000 x 1100 mm) Elevator 2: 8 users (1400 x 1100)

7 7.50

3 7

7 3.20

4 8

2 Vertical circulation - public Dvigalo 1: 10 users (1700 x 1100) Elevator 2: 10 users (1700 x 1100)

3 Vertical circulation public-private Elevator 1: 13 users (2000 x 1100) Elevator 2: 8 users (1400 x 1100) 4 Fire exit stairs

GSEducationalVersion

5 Firefighter’s elevator GSEducationalVersion

6 Bike storage Entrance to underground parking garage

Bike path

7 Kiosk - food, drink, newspapers, info... 8 Escalator - main entrance to the public part

GSEducationalVersion

±0.00 1:250 39

DRAWINGS Reception / Halls

HR1: Hybrid

F 3.20

7.50

2 +7.60

7.50

28.90

Âą 0.00

Reception

2 Food and drink stand

7.50

3 Office 3

4 News-stand B

5 Open staircase

6 Enclosed area in front of the fire exit stairs

3.20

A 3.20

7.50

3.20

43.90 1

+7.60 1:250

F 3.20

7.50

+22.80

3 D

+22.80

7.50

28.90

1 C

C +22.80

7.50

1 Main hall: 110 seats B

B 3.20

2 Small hall: 60 seats

A 3.20

7.50

3 Lobby

3.20

43.90 1

GSEducationalVersion

+22.80 1:250

Halls / Sport court

HR1: Hybrid

F 3.20

F +26.60

+ 22.80 7.50

+26.60

7.50

28.90

+ 22.80

1 C

7.50

+ 22.80

+26.60 + 22.80

B 3.20

1 Peripheral hallway

+26.60

A 3.20

7.50

2 Lobby (level under)

3.20

43.90 1

+26.60 1:250

F 3.20

1 E

7.50

28.90

1 C

7.50

+30.40

B 3.20

1 Multipurpose sport court: 37.5 x 22. 5 m

A 3.20

7.50

2 Outside terrace

3.20

43.90 1

GSEducationalVersion

+30.40 1:250 41

DRAWINGS Locker room / Swimming pool

HR1: Hybrid

F 3.20

7.50

28.90

1 1

1 Reception

7.50

2 Swimming pool program - lockers, showers, “wet” staircase

+38.00

3 B 3.20

A 3.20

7.50

3 Sport court program - locker rooms 4 Swimming pool technical area

3.20

43.90 1

+ 38.00 1:250

F 3.20

3 E

7.50

+41.80

7.50

28.90

+ 40.20

1 C

7.50

1 Swimming pool : 25 x 12.5 m B

B 3.20

2 Terrace 1

A 3.20

7.50

3 “Wet” staircase from the level +38.00

3.20

43.90 1

GSEducationalVersion

+41.80 1:250

Apartments / Terrace

HR1: Hybrid

F 3.20

5 E

7.50

4 D

7.50

28.90

+53.20

1 C

7.50

1 Hallway 2 1-bedroom B

3.20

3 2-bedroom 4 3-bedroom

A 3.20

7.50

5 Balcony (box)

3.20

43.90 1

+53.20 1:250

F 3.20

7.50

1 D

7.50

28.90

+68.40 +68.40 1 C

7.50

3 1 Kitchen B

3.20

2 Bar 3 Restaurant

A 3.20

7.50

4 Terrace

3.20

43.90 1

GSEducationalVersion

+68.40 1:250 43

DRAWINGS Section 1-1

HR1: Hybrid

+ 76.00

+ 72.20

+ 68.40

+ 64.60

+ 60.80

Private

+ 57.00

+ 53.20

+ 49.40

+ 45.60

+ 41.80

Public - private

+ 38.00

+ 34.20

+ 30.40

+ 26.60

+ 22.80

Public

+ 19.00

+ 15.20

+ 11.40

+ 7.60

+ 3.80

Â± 0.00

3.20

7.50

3.20

- 4.50

GSEducationalVersion

Section 1-1 1:250

Section A-A

HR1: Hybrid

+ 76.00

+ 72.20

Terrace + 68.40

Apartments + 64.60

Apartments + 60.80

Apartments + 57.00

Apartments + 53.20

Apartments + 49.40

Apartments + 45.60

Swimming pool + 41.80

Locker room + 38.00

+ 34.20

Sport court + 30.40

+ 26.60

Halls + 22.80

Bowling + 19.00

Restaurant + 15.20

Shops + 11.40

Reception + 7.60

+ 3.80

Public ground floor Âą 0.00

3.20

7.50

3.20

Underground parking - 4.50

GSEducationalVersion

Section A-A 1:250 45

DRAWINGS West facade

GSEducationalVersion

HR1: Hybrid

West facade 1:250

South facade

GSEducationalVersion

HR1: Hybrid

South facade 1:250 47

HR2

HIGH-RISE 2

OFFICE

DRAWINGS Ground floor

HR2:±0.00 Office Pavement

Grass with trees

Street +76.00

+76.00

Firefighting vi hacle area

+76.00

C D

28.90

7.50

3.20 1

7.50 7.50 3.20

±0.00

3.20

±0.00 2

7.50

+76.00 3

7.50

±0.00

+76.00

5 4 4

7.50

43.90

GSEducationalVersion

5 5

7.50

4 B

6 6

7.50

3.20

1 Vertical circulation core

C D F

GSEducationalVersion

2 Fire exit stairs GSEducationalVersion

3 Firefighter’s elevator 4 Main escalator entrance to the reception 5 Kiosk - food, drink, newspapers, info...

GSEducationalVersion

±0.00 1:250 49

DRAWINGS Typical story

HR2: Office

F 3.20

7.50

+11.40

7.50

28.90

1 Enclosed area in front of the fire exit stairs

5 2 +11.40

1 C

7.50

2 Office cubicle 3 Soundproof seminar room

± 0.00

4 Office 5 Open office

B 3.20

7 Terrace

A 3.20

7.50

6 Small kitchen

7.50

8 Open space

3.20

43.90

+11.40 1:250

F 3.20

7.50

± 0.00

7.50

28.90

+15.20 +15.20 2

7.50

1 Meeting room

2 Terrace - outside work B 3.20

3 Open space 4 Office

A 3.20

7.50

5 Greenery

3.20

43.90

GSEducationalVersion

+15.20 1:250

Typical story

HR2: Office

F 3.20

7.50

+53.20

7.50

28.90

4 + 45.60

7.50

1 Soundproof rooms

2 Larger kitchen with dining space

3.20

3 Copy room

A 3.20

7.50

4 Open space

3.20

43.90

+53.20 1:250

F 3.20

7.50

28.90

7.50

+68.40

B 3.20

A 3.20

7.50

1 Two-heighted multipurpose space 37.5 x 22.5 m + perimeter Max # users: 240

3.20

43.90

GSEducationalVersion

+68.40 1:250 51

DRAWINGS Section 2-2

HR2: Office

+ 76.00

+ 72.20

+ 68.40

+ 64.60

+ 60.80

+ 57.00

+ 53.20

+ 49.40

+ 45.60

+ 41.80

+ 38.00

+ 34.20

+ 30.40

+ 26.60

+ 22.80

+ 19.00

+ 15.20

+ 11.40

+ 7.60

+ 3.80

Â± 0.00

3.20

7.50

3.20

- 4.50

Section 2-2 1:250

GSEducationalVersion

Section B-B

HR2: Office

+ 76.00

+ 72.20

+ 68.40

+ 64.60

+ 60.80

+ 57.00

+ 53.20

+ 49.40

+ 45.60

+ 41.80

+ 38.00

+ 34.20

+ 30.40

+ 26.60

+ 22.80

+ 19.00

+ 15.20

+ 11.40

+ 7.60

+ 3.80

Â± 0.00

3.20

7.50

3.20

- 4.50

GSEducationalVersion

Section B-B 1:250 53

DRAWINGS West facade

GSEducationalVersion

HR2: Office

West facade 1:250

South facade

GSEducationalVersion

HR2: Office

South facade 1:250 55

DRAWINGS Details

HR1/HR2

8 7

Facade 1:50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Facade section 1:50

Diagrid RHS 300x200 IPE600 Double UPN 400 beam - thermal bridge interruption UPN400 with MEP holes Space frame h= 70 cm Raised floor - 20 cm Double pane sglass fence with aluminium handles Concrete slab + UPN beam - modular connective structure HEM450 Drain-waste-vent

Cooling

Heating Ventilation Sewer Electricity Lighting

GSEducationalVersion

Plan 1:50

VISUALIZATION View from Samova ulica

HR1/HR2

View from Dunajska cesta

HR1

VISUALIZATION Facade - Hybrid

HR1

Facade - Office

HR2

MODEL

CONCLUSION Comparison with a study

Flexible high-rise 2018 Rok Perme 76 m / 20 st. O: 43.9 x 28.9 m S: 22.5 m L: 1139.75 m² BS: 128.96 m² NFA: 88.7% S/GFA: 0.4% F: 66.5% A: .47 I: 81.9%

120m

14 10

S/U NFA

K/(U+S) S/GFA

D A

O I

NFA

[.25]

S/GFA

[.05]

[.35]

[.20]

[.15]

Lloyd’s Building

0.780

0.006

0.819

0.350

0.700

16.1

Ultra Highrise Project 1

0.923

0.005

0.579

0.340

0.879

15.9

Media HQ

0.810

0.037

0.825

0.410

0.791

15.8

Flexible high-rise

0.887

0.004

0.665

0.470

0.819

15.0

HSBC HQ

0.785

0.017

0.759

0.360

0.608

14.6

Lake Shore Drive

0.961

0.012

0.410

0.430

1.000

14.4

Crown Zellerbach HQ

0.717

0.009

0.779

0.530

0.869

14.3

Dewitt Chesnut Apartments

0.917

0.031

0.375

0.360

1.000

14.0

Ultra Highrise Project 2

0.862

0.002

0.545

0.420

0.800

14.0

Inland Steel Building

0.756

0.010

0.804

0.740

0.949

13.9

Astra

0.894

0.052

0.600

0.570

0.873

13.7

John Hancock Center (office)

0.841

0.019

0.334

0.340

1.000

13.2

NEO Bankside

0.834

0.034

0.482

0.500

0.901

12.8

When compared to other projects in a study, Flexible high-rise is positioned on a 4th place. It scored 17 points on a parameter NFA, 20 on S/GFA, 16 on F, 10 on A and 14 on I. Because of the double exterior structure (high moment of inertia) and therefore small structural elements, it scored all 20 points on parameter S/GFA. Illumination of the periphery was valued at 81.9% because of externally positioned building systems and cannot be compared to projects with internal cores and free facades that scored all 20 points. NFA of 88.7% was among the best with 17 points. Flexible high-rise scored the lowest 10 points on parameter of accessibility mostly because of the double external verical circulation configuration. Parameter of flexibility was above average with 16 points. As already mentioned under the section “comments”, architecture can not be measured with numbers only. Flexible high-rise has many unique characteristics that can not be counted into the study. One of them is definitely floor plan free of supports which enables complete freedom when it comes to floor plan layouts. The second one is peripheral in-between space that accommodates building systems as well as accompanying program of the function inside. The design of an in-between space would also dictate the look of the facade that would be changing along with the inside function. Function of each story would be therefore visible from the outside. And finally, one of the most important aspects of this high-rise concept is the independence between main building elements (primary structure, secondary structure, MEP systems, vertical circulation elements). This enables total freedom of adding, taking away or changing main building elements without impacting others. High-rise is therefore not just flexible in terms of a floor plan but as a whole building.

References Books

Articles

Sarkisian, M. (2016). Designing tall buildingBS: structure as architecture

Mir, M. A., Kyoung, S. M. (2007). Structural developments in tall build-

– second edition. New York: Routledge.

ingBS: current trends and future prospects. Architectural science review, izv. 50.3, str. 205-223.

Höewler, E. (2003). SkyscrapeBS: designs of the recent past and for the near future. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Mir, M. A. (2001). Evolution of concrete skyscraperBS: from Ingalls to Jin mao. Electronic journal of structural engineering, izv. 1, št. 1, str. 2-14

SOM. (2015). SOM structural engineering. München: Detail. Hill, J. (2017). How to build a skyscraper. London: RotoVision.

Electronic sources

Powell, K. (2006). 30 St. Mary Axe: a tower for London. London: Merrell

Glaeser, E. (2011). How skyscraper can save the city. The Atlan-

Publishers Ltd.

tic, izv. Marec 2011. httpBS://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/03/how-skyscrapers-can-save-the-city/308387/

Eisele, J., Kloft, E. (2003). High-rise manual: typology and design, construction and technology. Berlin: Birkhäuser.

Huang, CC et al. (2015). 12 green guidelineBS: CDBC’s green and smart urban development guidelines. http://energyinnovation.org/

Koolhaas, R. (1994). Delirious New York: a retroactive manifesto for

wp-content/uploads/2015/12/12-Green-Guidelines.pdf

Manhattan. Rotterdam: 010. http://www.arhitekturni-vodnik.org/ Bennett, D. (2005). The art of precast concrete: colour, texture, expression. Berlin: Birkhäuser.

SOM. (2011). Nature: structure. httpBS://www.som.com/ideas/research/nature__structure

Winter, J. (1969). Modern buildings. London: Paul Hamlyn. Hočevar, M., Uršič, M. (2007). Protiurbanost kot način življenja. Ljublja-

SOM. (2013). Timber tower research project. httpBS://www.som.com/

na: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

ideas/research/timber_tower_research_project

Brillembourg, A., Klumpner, H. (2013). Torre DaviA: informal vertical

SOM. (2015). Intelligent densitieBS: Vertical communities. httpBS://

communities. Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers.

www.som.com/ideas/research/intelligent_densities__vertical_communities

Kronenburg, R. (2007). Aflexible architecture that responds to change. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Nobel, P. et al. The future of the skyscraper. New York: Metropolis Books Yeang, K. (2000). Detail in buildinO: service cores. London: Wiley-Academy. Spittank, J. et al. (2010). Priročnik požarnovarstvenih ukrepov za visoke stavbe. Ljubljana: Inženirska zbornica Slovenije. Hegger, M. et al. (2008). Energy manual: sustainable architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser. Glavnik, A., Jug, a. (2010). Priročnik o načrtovanju požarne varnosti. Ljubljana: Inženirska zbornica Slovenije.

Pictures Study 01 httpBS://www.tumblr.com/tagged/lake-shore-drive-apartments 02 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/one_chase_manhattan_plaza 03 httpBS://archiphile.tumblr.com/post/5603701163/see-more-black-and-whites-here-displayed 04 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/inland_steel_building 05 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/crown_zellerbach_headquarters 06 http://www.arhitekturni-vodnik.org/scripts/open_large.php?objectID=87&id=1516&mode=0 07 httpBS://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=586424 08 http://www.arhitekturni-vodnik.org/scripts/open_large.php?objectID=31&id=1873&mode=0 09 http://www.arhitekturni-vodnik.org/scripts/open_large.php?objectID=35&id=1458&mode=0 10 http://www.arhitekturni-vodnik.org/scripts/open_large.php?objectID=9&id=964&mode=0 11 http://www.arhitekturni-vodnik.org/scripts/open_large.php?objectID=126&id=690&mode=0 12 httpBS://www.archdaily.com/625830/situla-housing-and-office-complex-bevk-perovic 13 httpBS://www.rsh-p.com/projects/neo-bankside/ 14 httpBS://www.dreamstime.com/editorial-stock-photo-mahanakhon-skyscraper-bangkok-view-thailand-luxury-floor-currently-under-construction-central-business-image67780973 15 httpBS://www.afar.com/travel-tips/the-best-of-taipei-city 16 httpBS://index.reit.ae/ 17 httpBS://www.designboom.com/architecture/rex-media-headquarters-buildings-04-17-2014/gallery/image/rex-media-headquarters-buildings-designboom-8/ 18 httpBS://www.archdaily.com/777083/allianz-tower-arata-isozaki-plus-andrea-maffei 19 httpBS://www.yenisafak.com/foto-galeri/ekonomi/turkiye-nin-en-yuksek-15-gokdeleni-2018955 20 httpBS://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/torre-cepsa/ 21 httpBS://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aon_Center_(Chicago) 22 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/dewitt_chestnut_apartments 23 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/brunswick_building 24 httpBS://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2014/03/11/20-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-chicagos-john-hancock-center/ 25 httpBS://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Midwest-Region-Landmarks-3542048 222888 25 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/nanjing_keyne_centre 26 httpBS://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/al-sharq-tower/303 27 httpBS://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Midwest-Region-Landmarks-3542048 222888 28 httpBS://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/hearst-headquarters/ 29 httpBS://www.archdaily.com/273404/o-14-reiser-umemoto 30 httpBS://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-st-mary-axe/ 31 httpBS://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/London/City_of_London 32 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/poly_real_estate_headquarters 33 httpBS://www.som.com/projects/100_mount_street 34 httpBS://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/century-tower/ 35 httpBS://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC_Building_(Hong_Kong) 36 httpBS://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/01/lloyds-of-london-may-quit-richard-rogers-building-over-design-frustrations/ 37 httpBS://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_China_(Hong_Kong) 38 httpBS://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/commerzbank-headquarters/ 39 http://afasiaarchzine.com/2013/05/christian-kerez-9/ 40 http://afasiaarchzine.com/2015/11/christian-kerez-16/christian-kerez-ultra-highrise-project-2-zhengzhou-5/